[madbrain]

I'm aware there are older Sigma and Tamron 28-300mm lenses in K-mount that could work with the K-1 .

There doesn't seem to be any modern superzoom that supports full-frame.

I am the owner of a Tamron AF 1.4x teleconverter. If combined with a modern APS-C superzoom, say, the Sigma 18-300, would it provide better IRQ than the older 28-300 zooms ?

Has anyone tried that sort of combo to see what the vignetting looked like ?

[boriscleto]

Why buy such an expensive camera just to put such a compromised lens on it?

[dave2k]

I have the K-1 and the Tamron 1.4x and I used to own the Tamron 18-250 superzoom. I think that 1.4x teleconverter is one of the best you can get. I actually sold the superzoom long before I bought the K-1 as the superzoom is quite a compromise. While the superzoom shots were decent, the lens was not up to the ability of my camera, which I think was the K-5 at that time. It's really hard to get good shots over a wide range of focal lengths with one lens. I think the best approach is to move to two lenses, like the 24-70 and the 60-250, although that is obviously less convenient than a superzoom. At the low end, the 28-105 is a very good performer and relatively inexpensive, but it doesn't go very wide. You can also consider shooting in APS-C mode with the K-1 or manually cropping as those similar approaches effectively increase the focal length. The 55-300 could be useful if you are willing to shoot in APS-C mode with the K-1. The bottom line is that there probably isn't a single lens that will give you high quality FF shots with the K-1 over a very wide range of focal lengths. If there was such a way, I probably would have found it by now.

[clackers]

I guess you could always shoot an 18-300 on the K-1 in crop mode, but it does seems to run counter to buying a K-1 to get better image quality.

[madbrain]

Why buy such an expensive camera just to put such a compromised lens on it?

There are situations when I want to have a full range of focal lengths, but changing lenses repeatedly is a problem (sandy, windy environments for example).

---------- Post added 06-25-18 at 06:35 PM ----------

I guess you could always shoot an 18-300 on the K-1 in crop mode, but it does seems to run counter to buying a K-1 to get better image quality.

Yes, of course. But what I'm getting it as, will the quality of the same length with Tamron 1.4x TC in FF mode be better than shooting in crop mode ?

---------- Post added 06-25-18 at 06:39 PM ----------

I have the K-1 and the Tamron 1.4x and I used to own the Tamron 18-250 superzoom. I think that 1.4x teleconverter is one of the best you can get. I actually sold the superzoom long before I bought the K-1 as the superzoom is quite a compromise. While the superzoom shots were decent, the lens was not up to the ability of my camera, which I think was the K-5 at that time. It's really hard to get good shots over a wide range of focal lengths with one lens. I think the best approach is to move to two lenses, like the 24-70 and the 60-250, although that is obviously less convenient than a superzoom. At the low end, the 28-105 is a very good performer and relatively inexpensive, but it doesn't go very wide. You can also consider shooting in APS-C mode with the K-1 or manually cropping as those similar approaches effectively increase the focal length. The 55-300 could be useful if you are willing to shoot in APS-C mode with the K-1. The bottom line is that there probably isn't a single lens that will give you high quality FF shots with the K-1 over a very wide range of focal lengths. If there was such a way, I probably would have found it by now.

I had the Tamron 18-250 but sold it, before I bought my K-1 II.
I bought the TC to pair it with the Sigma 10-20 and shoot in FF mode, but have not really been impressed with the result. I think my Sigma 10-20 copy is not the best one there could be.
Was wondering if there is any use for that TC or not.
The Sigma 18-300 is supposed to be a better one than the Pentax/Tamron 18-250 and 18-270 . That's why I'm wondering if that combo with TC will be better. All three are APS-C unfortunately.

Other brand of full frame DSLRs do have native full frame superzooms available. Seems to be a big void in the current lens lineup for the K-1, IMO.

[C_Jones]

I used a K-1 with my Sigma 150-500 DG OS. It does well in both full frame mode and aps-c mode, but when in full frame mode the distance that you may need for birding or other distanced wildlife is not as effective as an aps-c body such as the K-3II, due to the aps-c providing 1 and 1/2 times the distance that the full frame provides. The aps-c mode is an option on the K-1, and the distance would then be provided, but the megapixels are reduced to 16 in that mode, as opposed to 24 on a K-3II which is a dedicated aps-c camera.

The Sigma 150-500 DG OS provides excellent images with the K-1 in full frame mode for what is in reasonable reach, and so would the Pentax 150-450. For distanced shooting I keep my aps-c body on my Sigma 150-500 and use my Pentax K-1 II on my Pentax 70-200 for common distance full frame shooting.

[madbrain]

I used a K-1 with my Sigma 150-500 DG OS. It does well in both full frame mode and aps-c mode, but when in full frame mode the distance that you may need for birding or other distanced wildlife is not as effective as an aps-c body such as the K-3II, due to the aps-c providing 1 and 1/2 times the distance that the full frame provides. The aps-c mode is an option on the K-1, and the distance would then be provided, but the megapixels are reduced to 16 in that mode, as opposed to 24 on a K-3II which is a dedicated aps-c camera.

The Sigma 150-500 DG OS provides excellent images with the K-1 in full frame mode for what is in reasonable reach, and so would the Pentax 150-450. For distanced shooting I keep my aps-c body on my Sigma 150-500 and use my Pentax K-1 II on my Pentax 70-200 for common distance full frame shooting.

Thanks, but a 150-500 or 70-200 is not considered a superzoom, regardless of APS-C or full-frame.
Superzooms typically are 10x or greater focal length range and cover both wide and telephoto ranges.

[Adam]

I think the next best thing would be the D FA 28-105mm plus the upcoming consumer tele zoom from Pentax. It will hopefully come in a very lightweight package. Until then, even at 105mm the K-1 allows you to crop quite a lot.

[madbrain]

I have the D FA 28-105. Was looking for more tele range in one lens. My other goto lens is a Sigma 70-300. I just find myself wanting to switch between the two way too often.

[clackers]

Yes, of course. But what I'm getting it as, will the quality of the same length with Tamron 1.4x TC in FF mode be better than shooting in crop mode ? .

IMHO, TCs need to be used with very good lenses so they don't just magnify all the errors. You may be far better off cropping than using one.

The 1.4 on a superzoom will also make the focusing aperture so narrow that it can breach the f8 design limits of the camera's autofocus points. Performance could really suffer.

Your K-30 still has its uses, and this is one of them.

You'll see from my signature, I've still got mine.

[Barry Pearson]

I'm aware there are older Sigma and Tamron 28-300mm lenses in K-mount that could work with the K-1 .

There doesn't seem to be any modern superzoom that supports full-frame.

I am the owner of a Tamron AF 1.4x teleconverter. If combined with a modern APS-C superzoom, say, the Sigma 18-300, would it provide better IRQ than the older 28-300 zooms ?

Has anyone tried that sort of combo to see what the vignetting looked like ?

I may be mainly using the D FA 150-450mm, (say), but I'll always have the D FA 28-105mm with me.
(The gap between 105mm and 150mm isn't important, because of the high image quality of the 28-105mm lens).

I realise that changing lenses is risky in bad conditions. But my experience is that, in bad conditions, I rarely need anything resembling a superzoom.

[clickclick]

Yes, of course. But what I'm getting it as, will the quality of the same length with Tamron 1.4x TC in FF mode be better than shooting in crop mode ?

I've been playing around with my Pentax 1.7x AF adapter/TC on my K1, and it's really hit or miss if the IQ is better than just cropping. Where I have been surprised is coupling it with something like my DA* 50-135. The TC expands the image circle to the point it's covering the full field of view of FF. The IQ is still pretty good too. It really seems to be a crap shoot though on what you're going to get. I've done a series of controlled shots with my DFA 150-450 with and without the adapter, and I'd say over the range of apertures, the 150-450 on it's own and upsampled is better. But playing around at specific apertures, there are some combinations where they become pretty close. Bottom line though is it seems better to skip the TC and crop or upsample for the most predictable results.

[madbrain]

IMHO, TCs need to be used with very good lenses so they don't just magnify all the errors. You may be far better off cropping than using one.

The 1.4 on a superzoom will also make the focusing aperture so narrow that it can breach the f8 design limits of the camera's autofocus points. Performance could really suffer.

Your K-30 still has its uses, and this is one of them.

You'll see from my signature, I've still got mine.

Thanks for the feedback. Would the K-30 be any better than just shooting with the K-1 II in crop mode with an APS-C lens ?
It seems to me that I would still get better AF, focus points covering most of the APS-C frame, higher ISO, etc. So not much of a reason to keep the K-30 except as a backup camera.

For instance, my K-1 II has been at precision for repair estimate for the last 2 weeks. I hope I finally get it back next week ...

But my main backup camera are my Lumix GX85 and Galaxy Note 8, so I'm not sure I really still need the K-30 . Only reason to keep it would be that my mom shoots with a nearly identical K-50 and often asks me questions about operating it, and she is 6000 miles away and it's not easy to help over the phone without an identical camera.

---------- Post added 06-26-18 at 11:57 AM ----------

IBut my experience is that, in bad conditions, I rarely need anything resembling a superzoom.

My experience has been different. For example, I was at Point Lobos last month and I was going back and forth a lot between shooting nearby flowers and very far-away seals. And then trying to take some wider shots. I could have walked around the same area 2 times, with each lens, but basically every other shot was at extreme focal lengths - wide or tele. There was sufficient wind and dust that I wouldn't have wanted to switch lens every other shot. K-1 II is heavy enough that I wouldn't want to carry my K-30 in addition, also.
I happened to take a fall that day along with the camera, and if I was carrying both bodies, they would likely have both have been damaged (well, 3, counting myself).
Having two straps around one's neck is also quite uncomfortable in my experience. At least the Lumix and Note 8 smartphone are handholdable without strap.

[nater]

I'm aware there are older Sigma and Tamron 28-300mm lenses in K-mount that could work with the K-1 .

There doesn't seem to be any modern superzoom that supports full-frame...

Any reason not to use an older superzoom? I don't have a K-1, but I have used the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX APO RF, Tokina 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AT-X 242 AF, and Tamron 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF Macro SP AF (not quite a superzoom) successfully on my K-5. They should work on the K-1.

[madbrain]

Any reason not to use an older superzoom? I don't have a K-1, but I have used the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX APO RF, Tokina 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AT-X 242 AF, and Tamron 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF Macro SP AF (not quite a superzoom) successfully on my K-5. They should work on the K-1.

Main reasons is that those are older lenses not really made for digital, probably not as sharp, and also only available used which may not be in great condition.
I recently bought a Sigma 28-300 DG on Amazon for $60 that turned out to be defective. There are a few Tamron or Sigma 28-300 on ebay but mostly in Japan, and condition is not great in terms of dust.

I would like to get the best possible IQ, within the compromise parameters that a superzoom allows. And of course I already bought the Tamron 1.4x TC so that is a sunk cost.
Just not sure if older FF zoom will really provide better IQ than new APS-C zoom + TC in FF mode. I guess one would have to test both to be sure.
I guess the best / least compromise combo would be an APS-C Sigma 18-300 on a crop body with >16MP like the K-70 or K-P. But I generally prefer not to carry multiple cameras.

And of course buying one more body costs $$$. I'm still unemployed at the moment so I'm not buying any more lenses or bodies just yet, but it looks like I will be getting a job offer by the end of this week and I may resume my LBA soon after.

I think all of this doesn't make a lot of sense, though. Maybe I can just use my tiny Lumix GX85 with the 12-32 lens for the wide range. That is 24-64mm in 35mm equivalent.
And keep the Sigma 70-300mm on my K-1 II . That would cover the whole range I need.

It is two bodies, but the weight of the GX85 + lens is actually less than that of the Sigma 18-300 superzoom lens. And if course I already have it so no extra purchase necessary.
The GX85 can be easily handheld in one hand without neck strap also. Probably wouldn't hurt to get a wrist strap if I'm going to use two cameras. Still less convenient than just using one camera with one lens. GX85 doesn't take nearly as good pictures as the K-1 II. It uses a proprietary Li-On battery also which is annoying.
At least the K-30 can take AA . K-70 cannot. K-P cannot either, even with its grip.

All these options look like compromises. What I really want is a modern FF zoom for Pentax ...